Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

David Ropeik is an instructor in the Environmental Management Program of the Harvard Extension School, author of How Risky Is It, Really? Why Our Fears Don’t Always Match the Facts, and a consultant on risk perception and risk communication.

This article advocates 'good information practices' i.e. ethics to be followed while disseminating information. I appreciate that.
However, I would like to point out two things.
One, the Australian government has been very nuanced in restricting the advocacy of the anti-vaccination group. It has effectively allowed them to carry on their anti-vaccination propaganda provided it is not financed by tax-payer funded tax-breaks and provided they do not try to misrepresent their stand.
Secondly, though the article starts with the author, an 'intellectual', advocating the high road to honest information dissemination practices, we soon find him degenerating into the same disingenuous practices. Why else, do we not find him take a stand on whether foods which are genetically modified should be clearly labelled so, or not? This, that the GMO companies clearly lobby against. Preparing the emotional ground in his readers by giving the examples of vaccination and climate-change, the author presents his shill for the GM foods industry.

Your evaluation of the Australian government’s actions regarding the Australian Vaccination Network and their implications for free speech was intriguing to me, and I concur that the officials are indeed performing an essential duty by “protecting public health and safety, based on […] medical evidence.” The data support the efficacy and safety of vaccination, with most significant adverse effects attributable to co-occurrence rather than causation. And because community-wide immunization is crucial to protecting the public from devastating diseases, vaccine skeptics who promote untruthful information must be held accountable for their actions. Our constitution does not protect speech if it creates "a clear and present danger” to others, as Justice Holmes wrote in his opinion on Schenck v. United States. When anti-vaccination materials dissuade parents from immunizing their children, the effects of herd immunity wane and we witness the resurgence of diseases that were previously almost eradicated, such as the recent measles outbreak. If the government does not regulate these vocal opponents, who will ensure the public has access to evidence-based and unbiased information? It is clear to me that the right to life and security supersedes the right to free speech in this instance, because others in the community can be harmed by an individual's decision not to vaccinate.

However, I find your dismissal of vaccine critics as “alarmists and self-serving profiteers” concerning, for not all can be so narrowly categorized. There have been a number of legitimate health concerns surrounding immunization, particularly the oral polio vaccine, which was linked to several cases of poliomyelitis and is no longer used in the U.S. These dissenting voices should not be silenced because they play a vital role in accountability, driving investigations of vaccine safety and pressuring pharmaceutical companies to continually improve upon their products. The distinction to be made here is that the Australian government did not censor the materials of the AVN; it mandated a change in name to ensure the group's platform and biases were readily apparent to the public. In keeping with this precedent, my proposal is that vaccination critics not be prevented from sharing their views, but that national governments follow the example of the World Health Organization, which set forth recommendations for identifying websites "providing information on vaccine safety that comply with good information practices." If the government mandated that similar comprehensive guidelines be displayed on both pro- and anti-immunization sites, readers would have immediate access to materials to help them evaluate the legitimacy of web-based sources. Additionally, while the messages of interest groups are influential in forming public perceptions of vaccines, we cannot deny the importance of a trusted healthcare provider, whose responsibility is to inform parents about the risks of not immunizing their child and to reassure them of the safety of the vaccine itself. Through counseling by specialists and utilization of tools that allow people to evaluate online sources, it seems certain to me that immunization will again become a respected cornerstone of this nation's health.

"...And, when the evidence is clear and the risk imminent, governments must push back, as Australia’s has done."

Here is the real problem with government suppressing freedom of speech. Advocates of "imminent risk" appear left and right, and start saying things like "in the name of public health and safety," referring to metrics like Disability-Adjusted Life Years....

This metric, has been modified recently in an IHME study, as the author-provided link explains, which clearly indicates immaturity of the specific metric. Not only that, but with a double definition, we do not really know what anyone is measuring.

Most of all, when someone starts with government suppression of free speech, continues with genetically modified food, and finishes with "imminent risk," the next thing to expect is to pose sanctions to not complying countries! This is not about health risks; it's about money.

Dangerous territory, indeed. This article unsettles me. Freedom to express an opinion and follow personal beliefs allows for a just and free society. Convince those that do not agree, do not legislate change in the face of uncertainty.

The anti vaccination advocacy group and others of their ilk actively follow and use the process of doubt creation, obfuscation of scientific evidence to justify their fears. The same process Big Tobacco used to hide the fact that smoking leads to higher rates of lung cancer which they knew but wanted those profits so much that they were prepared to sacrifice the rest of us to gain them. are these groups any different.

GMO's well there is an issue of forcibly merging (purist say splicing but it is forcibly done otherwise it doesn't happen) genetic material from one species or variety to another and typically those who advocate it as a solution cry out that it is perfectly safe and many lives will be saved. This is a reversal of the approach taken by the Merchants of Doubt and present it as those who question our product as Luddites and the causes of unnecessary deaths. Likewise both sides have no real proof of the benefits or the negative consequences but the risk is high for a later adverse finding.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.